Xeon w9-3575X vs Celeron 560

VS

Primary details

Comparing Celeron 560 and Xeon w9-3575X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the rankingnot rated30
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data34.04
Market segmentLaptopServer
Power efficiencyno data14.48
Architecture codenameno dataSapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release date1 January 2008 (16 years ago)24 August 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$3,789

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Celeron 560 and Xeon w9-3575X basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical coresno data44
Threadsno data88
Base clock speed2.13 GHz2.2 GHz
Boost clock speedno data4.8 GHz
L1 cacheno data80 KB (per core)
L2 cacheno data2 MB (per core)
L3 cache1 MB L2 Cache97.5 MB
Chip lithography65 nmIntel 7 nm
Die sizeno data4x 477 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data79 °C
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+
VID voltage range0.95V-1.3Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Celeron 560 and Xeon w9-3575X compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configurationno data1
SocketPPGA478FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)31 Watt340 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Celeron 560 and Xeon w9-3575X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)-+
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology-2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
TSX-+
Idle States-no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data+
FSB parity-no data
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Celeron 560 and Xeon w9-3575X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
EDB++
SGXno data-
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Celeron 560 and Xeon w9-3575X are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-x-+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Celeron 560 and Xeon w9-3575X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesno dataDDR5-4800
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TB
Max memory channelsno data8
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Celeron 560 and Xeon w9-3575X.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data112

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.



Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Celeron 560 339
Xeon w9-3575X 82624
+24273%

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 January 2008 24 August 2024
Power consumption (TDP) 31 Watt 340 Watt

Celeron 560 has 996.8% lower power consumption.

Xeon w9-3575X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 16 years.

We couldn't decide between Celeron 560 and Xeon w9-3575X. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Celeron 560 is a notebook processor while Xeon w9-3575X is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Celeron 560 and Xeon w9-3575X, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Celeron 560
Celeron 560
Intel Xeon w9-3575X
Xeon w9-3575X

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.8 15 votes

Rate Celeron 560 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Xeon w9-3575X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Celeron 560 or Xeon w9-3575X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.